28 And we know that all things work together for good to them that love God, to them who are thecalled according to his purpose.29 For whom he did foreknow, he also did predestinate to be conformed to the image of his Son, that hemight be the firstborn among many brethren.30 Moreover whom he did predestinate, them he also called: and whom he called, them he also justified:and whom he justified, them he also glorified.

Sounds to me that god loves those who love him. Those who love him are predestined, chosen, and all around awesome.Do I get a gold star?

E for effort maybe. I was really hoping for a more scholarly approach. This is very debated scripture in christian circles. The calvinist says the key word is predestination.. since He predestined, then he will also do the rest.

Everyone else will try to fit some kind of "mans free will choice" in this. I think again this is more what people WANT to believe than what it actually says.

The big question is do you love God because you are called or because you choose to love God?

Logged

I can't help but look at those pages (human genome) and have a vague sense that this is giving me a glimpse of God's mind.-Francis Collins lead scientist Human Genome project

Perhaps you could clarify - was your god with you in your van while you were still a sinner, or did heonly appear after you were "saved"?

Maybe I Should back up a bit and Not use God so freely. I just realized saying God is NOT the same to you as the Holy Spirit of God, as it is to me. Please forgive my Christianesen God Himself stays on the throne at at all times. His worker or power in this world is the Holy Spirit. That being said. Before the foundation of the world Before adam and eve. I was chosen. Technically speaking there was no "before salvation" in this dispensation or time frame between the 2 advents of Christ. I was chosen and forgiven before the foundation of the world. The Holy Spirit was always with me.

Yes, it gets very confusing when you aren't specific.

But to echo a question I asked elsewhere to no avail.....if all the sinners and saved are pre-chosen, there is NOTHING you or I can do to change our status. "yay, grace of god" I'm sure you are thinking.

But it begs the question: if there is nothing we can do about my status as a sinner, is not everything you say to me about your god just you boasting about something you have, that I can never obtain?

Before the foundation of the world Before adam and eve. I was chosen. Technically speaking there was no "before salvation" in this dispensation or time frame between the 2 advents of Christ. I was chosen and forgiven before the foundation of the world. The Holy Spirit was always with me.

There was no "before salvation" - people are 'chosen and forgiven' before the foundation of the world, and presumably this means before the actual death and resurrection of Jesus.

But now you say that this 'choosing and forgiving' part happened with the death and resurrection of Jesus.

Which is it?

Was salvation given before the death and resurrection of Jesus? If so, what was the purpose of the death and resurrection of Jesus?Was salvation given with the death and resurrection of Jesus? If so, on what basis do you claim that you were chosen to be saved prior to the foundation of the world existing?

You appear to be making two mutually-exclusive claims.

Edit:Upon a second reading, you may not be making mutually-exclusive claims after all. Perhaps what you're saying is:

Before the beginning of time, god decided who of his future-creations would be saved and who would not be saved. The actual 'saving' part, the death and resurrection of Jesus, will, in the future, be done.

Which are not mutually-exclusive, but it certainly does make me wonder a few things: Why did god wait so long to execute this 'salvation' plan when he knew, from even before the beginning, that he needed to do it? Is he also an omni-procrastinator? What makes this blood-sacrifice thing necessary? Is god trying to appease his god? Did some other super-being greater than god establish this 'rule'? To echo Boots - how do you know any of this? To echo Anfauglir - what's the point of you telling us all of this knowledge?

"When we landed on the moon, that was the point where god should have come up and said 'hello'. Because if you invent some creatures, put them on the blue one and they make it to the grey one, you f**king turn up and say 'well done'."

If you are pre-forgiven why can't God be in your van too?Get it?I hope this clears things up.

Sounds like a cosmic lottery to me. Your god picks essentially random people to be "pre-forgiven" - whatever that's supposed to mean? I guess it means he gives them a blank check for anything and everything they do before they hear his call. So no matter what sin they might commit, it's all forgiven in advance, so your god can stand to be in the same place as them without suffering "sin poisoning". Like radiation poisoning, except for gods.

I fail to see how this represents anything except the kind of utter capriciousness that was evidenced by the Greek/Roman pantheons, though. Your god just picks people at random, gives them blank checks for 'sin' so he can hang out with them until they hear his call, at which point they'll miraculously convert no matter what their prior opinion on the matter was, and spend the rest of their lives (and presumably, their entire 'afterlife') singing his praises, suggesting that he suffers another of those Olympian vices, namely vanity.

I suppose it's just as well you think that people have no choice but to come when they hear his call. I can't imagine anyone being willing to worship such a creature if they had any choice in the matter.

Everyone else will try to fit some kind of "mans free will choice" in this. I think again this is more what people WANT to believe than what it actually says.

There seems to be a lot of that.

Quote

The big question is do you love God because you are called or because you choose to love God?

I take it that this question is not directed at me.So do you feel only a select few are even capable of loving god because god made them that way? If you are not created that way are you at a disadvantage if you choose to love god? And finally if god creates all of us and only selects a few of us to be capable of loving him why all the hub bub about worshipping him if he created us not to love him? Hopefully I have something misunderstood here.

Yes, have you any peer-reviewed papers published in reputable journals that describe this reaction in a way that is repeatable? Or is it simply something pulled out of the ar*e of some Bronze-Age peasant?

Logged

Nobody says “There are many things that we thought were natural processes, but now know that a god did them.”

You don't still think the scientific method answers all questions do you?

what questions or kinds of questions do you think it does not answer?

Are you volunteering as a stand in and therefore taking the position that all questions can be answered by scientific method? Is it also your position that scientific method is the only valid way to answer any question?

Logged

I can't help but look at those pages (human genome) and have a vague sense that this is giving me a glimpse of God's mind.-Francis Collins lead scientist Human Genome project

You don't still think the scientific method answers all questions do you?

what questions or kinds of questions do you think it does not answer?

Are you volunteering as a stand in and therefore taking the position that all questions can be answered by scientific method? Is it also your position that scientific method is the only valid way to answer any question?

No, I'm asking a fricken question. I am trying to think of questions that cannot be answered via SM. I considered emotional questions, like, does my dog hate me. I decided that can be answered to a degree of probability by observation, which is the basis of SM. Also note, science only ever answers any question to a degree of probability. It never claims certainty. I know religious folk often mistake that for weakness, but it is actually a strength.

Anyway, I was trying to imagine what SM couldn't answer. I have a few ideas, but wanted to know what you were thinking.

Before the beginning of time, god decided who of his future-creations would be saved and who would not be saved. The actual 'saving' part, the death and resurrection of Jesus, will, in the future, be done.

YES!! You got it!

Quote

Why did god wait so long to execute this 'salvation' plan when he knew, from even before the beginning, that he needed to do it?

The Lord is not slack concerning his promise, as some count slackness;How am I supposed to know the reasons for God's time table?I'll guess though that We needed the time for Him to lay it out in a way we would understand and also recognize when it happened. I'm positive the problem is on us though not Him.

Quote

To echo boots- how do you know any of this?

Study study study... it's plain to know for anyone who wants to study

Quote

To echo Anfauglir - what's the point of you telling us all of this knowledge?

I was asked.

Logged

I can't help but look at those pages (human genome) and have a vague sense that this is giving me a glimpse of God's mind.-Francis Collins lead scientist Human Genome project

No, I'm asking a fricken question. I am trying to think of questions that cannot be answered via SM. Iconsidered emotional questions, like, does my dog hate me. I decided that can be answered to a degreeof probability by observation, which is the basis of SM. Also note, science only ever answers anyquestion to a degree of probability . It never claims certainty. I know religious folk often mistake thatfor weakness, but it is actually a strength.

Anyway, I was trying to imagine what SM couldn't answer. I have a few ideas, but wanted to know what you were thinking.

The question is this. Is scientific method the Only valid way to answer a question. I want to add, Is experimentation and peer review a requirement to answer All questions?

I see the SM refusal to answer any question in concrete terms can be a strength, Because ideas can always be reworked. I also see the weakness. Even a law can be reversed and a law is greater than a theory. We can collect a few hypotheses and form a theory which is really just the best hypothesis most scientists agree explains a set of hypotheses. All of this being true, why is a theory pushed as a fact?

Before the beginning of time, god decided who of his future-creations would be saved and who would not be saved. The actual 'saving' part, the death and resurrection of Jesus, will, in the future, be done.

YES!! You got it!

So life is just a puppet show, a pointless play, to reach a predetermined ending. harb, that is fucking idiotic. I cannot think of a more stupid or pointless thing for a god to do. Your god must be bored and retarded.

To the question of "do you want cheerios for breakfast?", no, SM need not be employed. I think questions of personal preference fall outside of what SM is intended for. If you are asking a question that demands an explanation of how things work, then I think the SM is the best way to get an accurate answer.

I see the SM refusal to answer any question in concrete terms can be a strength, Because ideas can always be reworked.

No, not because it allows ideas to be reworked. You make it sound like some kind of cheat. It is because we never have all the information. It is because our models are never perfect. It is because we need to take into account the fact that we are talking chimps who, by and large, cannot realize there are no invisible people running the universe, and as such will make flaws. It is because SM is an iterative process that builds on prior learning.

As used in science, however, a theory is an explanation or model based on observation, experimentation, and reasoning, especially one that has been tested and confirmed as a general principle helping to explain and predict natural phenomena.

Any scientific theory must be based on a careful and rational examination of the facts. In the scientific method, there is a clear distinction between facts, which can be observed and/or measured, and theories, which are scientists’ explanations and interpretations of the facts. Scientists can have various interpretations of the outcomes of experiments and observations, but the facts, which are the cornerstone of the scientific method, do not change.

I cannot tell if you are just lazy, sloppy and not that well educated, or if you are intentionally deceptive. For now, I will assume both.

combined with your fist comment.. Are these fighting words?Or are you trying to ask what's the question I'm suggesting can't be answered by SM. If it's the latter. I have no specific question in mind. I'm only suggesting that SM is not the only way to answer a question nor is it the only valid way to answer a question. I seems you are angry about it, but you generally agree as your request for the exact question implies.

Quote

No, not because it allows ideas to be reworked. You make it sound like some kind of cheat. It isbecause we never have all the information. It is because our models are never perfect. It is becausewe need to take into account the fact that we are talking chimps who, by and large, cannot realize there are no invisible people running the universe, and as such will make flaws. It is because SM is aniterative process that builds on prior learning.

Correct.... what happens though when new info is available? What if that new info leads closer to a more "perfect model?" What happens when we are able to correct a flaw or two? You could use this incredibly verbose explanation or because we both agree on the terms we could just keep it simple and say it allows a scientist to rework ideas.

Quote

It's not. The link from your quote goes on to say:

Quote

As used in science, however, a theory is an explanation or model based on observation,experimentation, and reasoning, especially one that has been tested and confirmed as a generalprinciple helping to explain and predict natural phenomena.Any scientific theory must be based on a careful and rational examination of the facts. In thescientific method, there is a clear distinction between facts, which can be observed and/ormeasured, and theories, which are scientists’ explanations and interpretations of the facts.Scientists can have various interpretations of the outcomes of experiments and observations, butthe facts, which are the cornerstone of the scientific method, do not change.

I cannot tell if you are just lazy, sloppy and not that well educated, or if you are intentionallydeceptive. For now, I will assume both.

Actually my original post did address this but I felt it rambled a bit and deleted it.We see that a fact or set of facts do indeed support a hypothesis. We also see from this language that the resulting Hypothesis is merely "scientists' interpretations of the facts" A hypothesis by nature is subjective and relative. When I collect a bunch of these hypotheses (not facts as they have not been proven to be more than an idea or guess) I am allowed to take the terminology a step further and call it a theory. A theory which actually goes deeper in relative subjection. The fact that lots of people agree on a fancy guess does not make it a fact.My question stands. Why is a theory, or collection of hypotheses, touted as though it's strict fact?or maybe you take both the theory of evolution AND the theory of biogenesis to be absolute fact? if this is the case, I would be interested to know how in your opinion these can both be true?

Logged

I can't help but look at those pages (human genome) and have a vague sense that this is giving me a glimpse of God's mind.-Francis Collins lead scientist Human Genome project

No, I'm asking a fricken question. I am trying to think of questions that cannot be answered via SM. I considered emotional questions, like, does my dog hate me. I decided that can be answered to a degree of probability by observation, which is the basis of SM. Also note, science only ever answers any question to a degree of probability. It never claims certainty. I know religious folk often mistake that for weakness, but it is actually a strength.

Anyway, I was trying to imagine what SM couldn't answer. I have a few ideas, but wanted to know what you were thinking.

Correct.... what happens though when new info is available? What if that new info leads closer to a more "perfect model?" What happens when we are able to correct a flaw or two? You could use this incredibly verbose explanation or because we both agree on the terms we could just keep it simple and say it allows a scientist to rework ideas.

Nice to be chose, as we used to say in the hood when a boy picked you to dance out of all the girls. So god is now like a dude checking out the girls. Only he pre-selects the ones he will dance with ahead of time, and arranges for the rest to be eventually kicked out of the club by the bouncer.

Really, can a god act more like a jerk?

If this was really the way the universe worked, what a waste of human life! To create all those people, all those immortal souls, knowing that most of them would just end up in the fire no matter what they did.

When I collect a bunch of these hypotheses (not facts as they have not been proven to be morethan an idea or guess) I am allowed to take the terminology a step further and call it a theory.

A scientific theory summarizes a hypothesis or group of hypotheses that have been supported withrepeated testing.

hy·poth·e·sis /h??päTH?sis/Noun: 1. A supposition or proposed explanation made on the basis of limited evidence as a startingpoint for further investigation2. A proposition made as a basis for reasoning, without any assumption of its truth

quote "A scientific hypothesis is the initial building block in the scientific method . Many describe it asan “educated guess,” based on prior knowledge and observation"So I did a few tests based on a hypothesis and then formed a more refined hypothesis about something based on the tests I have done. A hypothesis is by definition unproven. Once I have a few hypotheses that everyone agrees on I can clump them together and write a theory that would explain how all of these hypotheses could be true thus moving a bunch of guesses into a single fancy guess.

Quote from: red dragon

>That is incorrect. go back and read your own link.

I did that... again. This time though I also added a definition for hypothesis and quoted what a scientific hypothesis is.

Quote from: harbinger77

My question stands.

Quote from: red dragon

It shouldn't. It should fall down, because your own link shows the premise of your question to befaulty.

I have laid out my logic. I believe I have stayed true to the definition of both scientific hypotheses and scientific theory. Other than you don't like the simple language. where is my flaw?

I also noticed you didn't address theory of evolution vs theory of biogenesis. How can both of these be true IF theory = fact?

Logged

I can't help but look at those pages (human genome) and have a vague sense that this is giving me a glimpse of God's mind.-Francis Collins lead scientist Human Genome project

A scientific theory summarizes a hypothesis or group of hypotheses that have been supported withrepeated testing.

Yes and no. A scientific theory requires testing done by numerous people, preferably who aren't all working together. This is because it's very easy for bias to influence the results, so if you have people who work separately, it minimizes the potential effects of bias.

Quote from: harbinger77

So I did a few tests based on a hypothesis and then formed a more refined hypothesis about something based on the tests I have done. A hypothesis is by definition unproven. Once I have a few hypotheses that everyone agrees on I can clump them together and write a theory that would explain how all of these hypotheses could be true thus moving a bunch of guesses into a single fancy guess.

Incorrect. You make a hypothesis based on something you observed. Then you test it with new observations and experiments, and let other people test it as well to make sure you didn't make any mistakes. Once you and others have tested it in every way you can think of, and it still holds up, then you can consider it a theory. But it takes years, often decades, for a hypothesis to graduate into a theory. And even then, continued testing might find a flaw in it.

Quote from: harbinger77

I also noticed you didn't address theory of evolution vs theory of biogenesis. How can both of these be true IF theory = fact?

Abiogenesis is one possible explanation for how life might have come to be. Evolution is the accepted explanation for how life diversified. Thus, evolution is not dependent on abiogenesis, and vice versa. We have plenty of supporting evidence for evolutionary theory, whereas we haven't quite narrowed down abiogenesis, and thus it's still a hypothesis.

I think I could better answer that if I knew the source of the "hub bub" that you referred to.

Well one thought that comes to mind is that if the whole Christian religion all boils down to a cosmic lottery of the chosen or the damned why bother spreading the good word? Are you attempting to rub our noses in your cosmic choseness? Or are you trying to save souls who can't be saved due to the creators decision to damn us from the start? And if a creator or god wishes to be loved and worshipped by his creations why design (what 90%?) of that creation to be incapable of loving you and damn them all. Lol and you worship this being? Who is the bad guy in your mythology and why?

I honestly didn’t expect the answers you gave me. I didn’t actually think that a modern religion could be so villainous yet claim moral high ground and benevolence. Although you are a bit of an oddity of the Xians I have talked to so I supposed I should ask if your god is in your opinion benevolent or if he only cares about his chosen creations.

I have had Calvinist predestination type folks try to explain to me why they bother to tell anyone about the religion. A few simple questions and they get twisted up in illogic faster than a speeding bullet. They should just stay their butts at home and leave off with the preaching, since god has already decided who would be saved before he even created the universe.

You can't change what god has already done. Nothing anyone does matters. Really.

A scientific theory summarizes a hypothesis or group of hypotheses that have been supported withrepeated testing.

Once I have a few hypotheses that everyone agrees on I can clump them together and write a theory that would explain how all of these hypotheses could be true thus moving a bunch of guesses into a single fancy guess.

Emphasis added.

This *really really* bothers me. the fact you call a theory something that has been SUPPORTED WITH REPEATED TESTING, yet characterize it as a "single fancy guess" is disengenuous to the point of being a lie.

Will the sun rise tomorrow (yes, I know the sun doesn't actually rise, but you know what i mean)?

Yes.

True, the answer is technically an "educated guess" based on past experience of thousands upon thousands of days in which the sun has, in fact, come up. Yes, it's technically true that the sun *could* possibly not come up tomorrow, given a catastrophic event(s) or the intervention of a diety or something else crazy. But the smart money is on the "educated guess," educated enough that we have multiple day-to-day activities and tools like clocks and calendars that use that guess as a FACT, that the sun will come up tomorrow.

I hate theists' dishonest wordgames. THAT'S one reason atheists sometimes call them "liars for the lord"--because of what you're trying to pull here.

Logged

It's one of the reasons I'm an atheist today. I decided to take my religion seriously, and that's when it started to fall apart for me.~jdawg70

To echo Anfauglir - what's the point of you telling us all of this knowledge?

I was asked.

Then you missed the point of the question - which was:

"What is the point of you coming here AT ALL, if not to gloat that you are saved and we are not?"

Your presence here will not alter your god's decision, made for all of us pre-birth, as to our salvation or not. So really, all you are doing here is maliciously taunting us with goodness that we can never have.

I think what saddens me the most is that your god is clearly okay with that, because he's not going to withdraw your salvation for displaying such an attitude.

You are screwed (or not) before you are born, and your life will (or will not) suck accordingly, and there isn't a thing you can do about it but wait for the afterlife where it will either get much better or get much worse. Life here on earth is basically a worthless waste of time for everyone, as we are all just waiting for the next thing to happen.

I swear, the more contradictory crap I hear from Christian theists, the more I have grudging respect for Hindus. They believe the same stuff about the worthlessness of life on earth, but at least they have the courtesy not to proselytize their religion to the rest of us hopeless losers as if we had the power to change anything.

I can get behind that; I don't care what crazy made-up sh!t you believe about me or the world, as long as you keep it to yourself.

have you any peer-reviewed papers published in reputable journals that describe this reaction in away that is repeatable?

You don't still think the scientific method answers all questions do you?

Well, if your baseless assertion is set against the scientific method, I think we can see how your idea of "making it up to suit yourself" is less than rigorous. And yet we are asked to stake our eternal soul on what you say.

I tell you what, why don't you come round for a high-stakes game of chance: I make the rules, the rules are indecipherable and contradictory and I always win and you can't complain because everything I do is "for the best." Losing will make you "a better person."

You see, you are willing to stake your soul on there being a heaven, but the same game in the real world, and your brain takes over.

Logged

Nobody says “There are many things that we thought were natural processes, but now know that a god did them.”